New 4th Ed Article: Elves

[Dizlag]

A new Design and Development Article: Elves (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070905a) is up on Wizard's site now. It's a nice write-up, but I've got a question. What are the Eladrin? Is it a sylvan race in Faerun? I know Forgotten Realms will be the new flag ship campaign setting for D&D 4th Edition, yet would the Eladrin be a core race as well because of the comparisons? Could there be sub-races listed in core rules for 4th Edition?

These were just a couple questions that popped up in my mind while reading the article.

Thanks!

Dizlag

[Green Bean]

Hmm. Interesting read. From the bit about 'easily moved to short-lived emotional extremes', I'd say that they're moving elves back to their faerie roots. Personally, I like.

[Starsinger]

A new Design and Development Article: Elves (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070905a) is up on Wizard's site now. It's a nice write-up, but I've got a question. What are the Eladrin? Is it a sylvan race in Faerun? I know Forgotten Realms will be the new flag ship campaign setting for D&D 4th Edition, yet would the Eladrin be a core race as well because of the comparisons? Could there be sub-races listed in core rules for 4th Edition?

These were just a couple questions that popped up in my mind while reading the article.

Thanks!

Dizlag

Eladrin are a type of Chaotic Good outsider, the Ghaele for example, is an Eladrin. Eladrin are notedly similar to elves in physical appearance.

[Flawless]

Eladrin are the chaotic good outsiders. Like demons, only good instead of evil or like angels, onlychaotic instead of lawful.

They are not FR specific. You can find them in the 3.5 MM .

[Rex Blunder]

Also, reference is made to corellan and obad-hai. I thought they were ditching the greyhawk pantheon.

[Dausuul]

A new Design and Development Article: Elves (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070905a) is up on Wizard's site now. It's a nice write-up, but I've got a question. What are the Eladrin? Is it a sylvan race in Faerun? I know Forgotten Realms will be the new flag ship campaign setting for D&D 4th Edition, yet would the Eladrin be a core race as well because of the comparisons? Could there be sub-races listed in core rules for 4th Edition?

These were just a couple questions that popped up in my mind while reading the article.

Thanks!

Dizlag

Hmm... well, obviously they're changing the meaning of eladrin a bit, or at least the power level (in 3E, eladrins are a type of celestial, the chaotic good equivalent of archons). Coupled with that playtest article from a week or two ago, eladrins would appear to be some sort of quasi-elvish PC race.

It's nice to see that they're moving away from the "utopian elves" of earlier editions. Those never sat well with me. Smug elder-race bastards.

[Nerd-o-rama]

You know, this whole "you must have a username to view our content" thing is getting really annoying. I suppose I will eventually, since you don't have to pay for it yet, but it just seems pointless.

On what I know of the actual article, I can tell you that the Eladrin in 3.5 are the Chaotic Good exemplar outsiders, their alignment's equivalent to Archons (Lawful Good) and Demons (Chaotic Evil). They tend toward the wild and natural, and are led by Morwel, Queen of the Faerie (who is not in fact an actual Fey). In short, they make sensible patrons for elves that actually act Chaotic Good and nature-worshippy, as opposed to the common perception of them as Lawful Sissy.

*stabbed to death by Simuninjas*

[Dizlag]

Thanks for pointing out the Eladrin are in the MM.

And yes, the Corellon and Obad-Hai reference threw me for a loop as well as they're not in the Faerun Pantheon ... or are they?

Dizlag

[TSGames]

I like Tolkien's elves a whole lot more. That aside, this sentence does not make sense:

They are inclined to impulsive behavior in preference to long deliberation, though they would say they prefer to act in the moment.
I'm not exactly sure what the author is trying to say. Elves are impulsive though they say they act in the moment? Well, ya, but why the word "though" it just doesn't make sense. Perhaps I have misunderstood acting "in the moment."

[averagejoe]

I agree with h_v about the 'easily moved to short-lived emotional extremes' bit, but at the same time I don't like the bit about, but at the same time I don't like the bit about how, 'They are inclined to impulsive behavior in preference to long deliberation, though they would say they prefer to act in the moment.' I like that they're increasingly more "feylike," but it doesn't make any sense to me that such a long lived race should want to live in the moment. The emotional extremes make sense to me because, as a long-lived race, they would have no reason to invest in long term emotions, simply because they would almost always outlive whatever they got emotionally involved in. Maybe it's just me. Still, not a big thing.

What I really liked was the, "wood elves, wild elves, or sylvan elves" part, which hopefully implies that all three will be taken to be one set of racial statistics instead of the umpteen different elf subtypes we have now.

[goat]

Because "Acting in the moment" sounds so much better than "being an impulsive fey git who refuses to think ahead".

[GimliFett]

To me the most interesting bit was about how elves prefer magic of the natural world to arcane magic. This seems to follow one of my own houserules, to some degree, anyway: Elves favored class is Druid (or Wu Jen, IMCs; player choice). Yay!

I also like the return of elves to a more fey-like society. I don't know how they'll manage that if FR is the default campaign world, though as the primary elven sub-races have become LG, IMO.

I think Eladrin may replace Half-elves, though what they're going to do to Eladrin, I dunno. Just my opinion considering we know at least one race will be dumped for 4e.

[Fax Celestis]

Corellan Larethian appears in both the Faerunian and Greyhawkian pantheons.

[GimliFett]

Corellan Larethian appears in both the Faerunian and Greyhawkian pantheons.

Yuppers. He's the Chief Elven deity. I don't mind replacing Sylvanus in FR with Obad-Hai. I like O-H way better! :smallsmile:

[Pokemaster]

It sounds like they're ditching the 'I'm better than you'-type elves, which is a good thing as far as I'm concerned. Arrogant elves who hate all other races are getting a bit overdone.

[Green Bean]

You know, this whole "you must have a username to view our content" thing is getting really annoying. I suppose I will eventually, since you don't have to pay for it yet, but it just seems pointless.


Try clicking the 'Printer Friendly Version' button. I don't have a user name, and it worked for me.

[AslanCross]

I like Tolkien's elves a whole lot more. That aside, this sentence does not make sense:

I'm not exactly sure what the author is trying to say. Elves are impulsive though they say they act in the moment? Well, ya, but why the word "though" it just doesn't make sense. Perhaps I have misunderstood acting "in the moment."

Goat said it above. It's kinda like a rogue saying "I'm a wealth redistribution specialist" instead of "I'm a thief."

It's interesting that the Elves are now -related- to the Eladrin. I guess this makes them more otherworldly?

Also, anyone notice that it seems to be focusing more on Wood Elves than the more civilized Silver/Moon Elves?

[Larrin]

Just a stab, but i won't be surprised if elfs got themselves cut in half. Elfs (wood elfs no less according to the article) are the woodsey types that 3.5 did a less then good job of portraying them as (IMHO), Eldarin will be the Wizardly type, the high elves that live in cities and have a civilization and go for week without hugging a tree. Thus instead of trying to make elves arcane magical bow shooting feyish beings that supposedly live in the woods, but actually don't when it comes down to it, we have the elves who are bow shooting feyish beings that live in the woods and Eldarin who are arcane magical feyish beings that don't (live in trees). This will of course rub everyone the wrong way, since RA Salvatore (or insert your faovrite author/setting) never mentioned Eldarins in this aspect. I think WoTC are trying to avoid naming two 'core'(?) races "wood elf" and "high elf" by giving each a unique name.

[Iku Rex]

You know, this whole "you must have a username to view our content" thing is getting really annoying. I suppose I will eventually, since you don't have to pay for it yet, but it just seems pointless.http://www.bugmenot.com/

[DSCrankshaw]

I think Eladrin may replace Half-elves, though what they're going to do to Eladrin, I dunno. Just my opinion considering we know at least one race will be dumped for 4e.
Half-elves were mentioned in the article on Races a while back, so I doubt they'll be disappearing. Gnomes and Half-orcs seem the most at risk.

[Hurlbut]

Try clicking the 'Printer Friendly Version' button. I don't have a user name, and it worked for me.

If you are already REGISTERED on the WOTC FORUMS, you can sign in with the same username you used on the Forums.

[GimliFett]

Half-elves were mentioned in the article on Races a while back, so I doubt they'll be disappearing. Gnomes and Half-orcs seem the most at risk.

Dump half-orcs if you must, but not my gnomes! Keep gnomes, get rid of halflings. Too much like hobbits. Too much like elves, just shorter.

Sorry. Of the small races, I'll take gnomes and goblins (even with the Charisma penalty) over halflings. I'd like to see a slightly modded goblin race as a beginning player race.

[Kurald Galain]

Cute but cliche.

[GimliFett]

Cute but cliche.

Which? Halflings? Agreed. Gnomes? Drop the freakin'-tinker-thing. In my world, gnomes are actually very similar to Romer (or gypsies if you prefer). Goblins cute? Ummm. Naw. But they can be cool! :smallwink:

[TSGames]

Half-elves were mentioned in the article on Races a while back, so I doubt they'll be disappearing. Gnomes and Half-orcs seem the most at risk.
http://www.farqtheorc.com/prelude/collector.jpg

[Hurlbut]

get rid of halflings. Too much like hobbits.Um, they ARE hobbits, only renamed.

[AslanCross]

Eladrin replacing half-elves? o_o Eladrins have +5 LA, so even if they ditch the Level Adjustment thing they'd have to nerf them dramatically in power to make them a core PC race. (That's the dwarflike Bralani Eladrins. The Ghaele Eladrins are something else altogether and for some reason don't advance by character class.)

Eladrins aren't a single race with subraces like elves. It's more of a super-race (like Archon or Demon) that has many races underneath it that are very different from one another, though they share common Outsider traits and alignment. (There are tiny ones like the Courre Eladrin, dwarflike ones like the Bralani, and big winged ones too.) I don't think they're doable as a core race without being changed dramatically from what they are in 3.X.

[Sebastian]

It sounds like they're ditching the 'I'm better than you'-type elves, which is a good thing as far as I'm concerned. Arrogant elves who hate all other races are getting a bit overdone.


Yeah, while nature friendly elves are soooo original. ;)
Anyway, It is just a guess, but I think the Eladrims will cover that Better-than-you part.

[GimliFett]

Um, they ARE hobbits, only renamed.

I know, and another reason to drop them. They had that whole lawsuit thing way-back-when; with 3.0 and beyond they've tried to move them into a more kender-ish role (deny it if you will, but you deny truth!). Ugh.

[Draz74]

Also, anyone notice that it seems to be focusing more on Wood Elves than the more civilized Silver/Moon Elves?

You mean Gray Elves (to use Grayhawk or a generic setting instead of FR)?

Well, yes, they are focusing the "elves" more on the woodland side of things.

I think the "more civilized" role -- the race that is scholarly, lives in cities of fantastic architecture instead of in trees, produces great wizards and great works of art and so on -- is now filled by (surprise!) the Eladrin.

That is, in rough terms, they're getting rid of "high" elves (or "all-purpose elves, who somehow manage to be specialized rangers and wizards at the same time in a strange thematic dichotomy"), changing the Gray Elves' name to "Eladrin," and changing the Wild/Wood Elves' name to "Elves."

All just IMHO, from what it sounded like in the article. And, overall, I approve, because I never liked the elves' thematic confusion. I always felt like the elves were no longer elves, as long as they had "Favored Class: Wizard." This seems to be taking them back to their roots in a very Lothlorien-style way. (Which I'm afraid will be overdone -- I do want the elves to have some characteristics other than tree-huggerness. But it's a step in the right direction, even if it might be a step wearing seven-league boots.)

For those who are still insisting that Eladrin are CG Outsiders, the chaotic equivalent of Archons, far too powerful to be a core race or a race without LA, and that 4E couldn't possibly change something so fundamental about the demographics of the planes, I recommend you check out the discussion (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=915263) on how much they're changing demons and devils. Get used to the idea, folks: they're redefining a lot about Outsiders to make them more setting-generic and less redundant.

I was surprised at the preservation of the names Corellon (though I notice he dropped his last name) and Obad-Hai. Can't we get a completely new generic pantheon? :smallyuk:

[Merlin the Tuna]

And yes, the Corellon and Obad-Hai reference threw me for a loop as well as they're not in the Faerun Pantheon ... or are they?FR is not the default campaign setting, and the article makes no mention of FR in it. A number of Greyhawk deities are getting ported over to the new generic setting, and a few of the old guard are getting promoted, too -- Asmodeus, for example, is supposedly a god.

[TSGames]

-- Asmodeus, for example, is supposedly a god.

Looks like he finally succeeded. Good for him.

[Saph]

They sound way too flavour-specific to me. 'Wild tree-hugger' is a very specific character niche. I prefer the more generic 3.5 elves.

I can't see how this would fit in with the FR elves at all. Are they going to say that moon elves and sun elves aren't elves anymore, but 'eladrin'? Seems a bit unnecessary.

- Saph

[Fax Celestis]

The Eladrin in the article is comparing their mindset, not their genetic heritage. At least, that was my reading.

[GryffonDurime]

I'm impressed. More about the Eladrin than anything else, I think--really, the whole "they're too powerful" speil...yes, 3.5 Eladrins are too strong for player races. But Eladrins in 4.0? Who knows. My guess is they're creating a base race that grows over time, following the new racial system. Really, why is an Eladrin strong now? Because they have racial hitdice that grant them abilities rather than class levels. I'd love a system that helps me make outsiders at any level--even if it's just using class levels rather than races and racial abilities per 3.5

[Machete]

I guess I liked the "mostly utopian," decent-head-on-their-shoulders, self-sufficient elves.

I am dissappointed. I feel like there is a red elephant cackling at me somewhere.

[Jarlax]

i like it. there giving elves a more narrow personality as a race that fits well with the "points of light" theme they are looking at for the core setting. instead of being the keepers of mystic knowledge of their long lived race OR tree hugging hippie elves, depending on how your playing them. we now just have the one type.

its sounds like the Eladrin might be taking up the first half of the elf personality, the intellect of infinite knowledge and i-am-better-than-you personality. does that mean they are a PC race? perhaps not, if this was not a piece of text written solely for the article then it has come from one of two places.

first, it could be the flavor text for the Elves Race in the PHB. its description of relationships and culture certainly sound like the stuff you get in the PHB. however i don't think drow or orcs made they cut as PC races so being mentioned in the PHB text wont mean the eladrin are a PC race.

Second, its the text for the MM version of the elves. they have said that each race would have a separate entry and rules for monster and PC race rather than try and make the two compatible.

however my thought is that whatever source it may be elves, grey elves, dark elves and wood elves are gone as racial subtypes. there is now only the classic elf race, taking over what was previously the wood elf description. the eladrin who now represent the Grey elves of 3.5 and finally the drow that are still the classic dark elves.

there will probably be an origin story not so different to the classic drow story, however i am guessing it will now include a parting of ways by the classic elves too, half receding to the depths of the forest and the other half using their long life to unlock the secrets of the world. all this would have happened ages ago and the races have evolved in to little more than distant cousins not a single race with like 5 subtypes (aquatic, drow, half, grey, wild)

[Talya]

They aren't making major changes to the racial types. Elves are defined by the setting, not the core rules. FR's elves have a long history, you can't change that history and still have it be Faerun. If anything, they are clarifying things that were never well spelled out before.

The entire Seldarine --every elf god and goddess, and for that matter, the Dark Seldarine as well-- are the embodiments of chaos. That is how it has always been. From Corellon Larethian's CG alignment to Lolth's CE alignment, they are all chaotic in the extreme. They are very fey-like, that's just what they are. Some people try to make them more tolkienish, which is fine, but that's not how they've been portrayed in most D&D settings. That's also the Eladrin connection - Eladrin are for Elves what Archons are for humans. (Angels can be any good alignment).

[Starsinger]

When they mentioned Tieflings being core, they didn't mention Aasimars. Maybe Eladrin are the good aligned core planetouched race instea of Aasimar?

[Talya]

When they mentioned Tieflings being core, they didn't mention Aasimars. Maybe Eladrin are the good aligned core planetouched race instea of Aasimar?

Meh. I'm just thinking with all the increased focus on Faerun, they were using Faerun's core races...which include Tiefling, Aasimar, and all Genasi.

[Kyle]

If they are indeed eliminating the elven subraces by defining wild/wood/green elves as Elves and high/gray/gold/silver Elves as Eladrin--as seems to be the case from my interpretation of the article--that can only be a good thing.

Now, granted, it doesn't really fit well in either the Forgotten Realms or Eberon campaign settings, but there's nothing to say that the individual campaign settings can't maintain their currant terminology. Though it seems the distinction would fit in well in the Forgotten Realms.

Anyways, having various subraces--especially underdark subraces, though that's a whole other topic--have differant attributes has never sat well with me, mostly because there wasn't, nor should there be, anything similar for humans. Establishing elven subraces as distinct branches on an evolutionary tree--much in the same way as dwarves and gnomes--cleans up that mess a bit, and hopefully indicates a desire to do away with the various subraces of other PC races as well.

[Talya]

Anyways, having various subraces--especially underdark subraces, though that's a whole other topic--have differant attributes has never sat well with me, mostly because there wasn't, nor should there be, anything similar for humans.


Blame the "Politically Correct" for that little tidbit. Human racial "subraces" with different strengths and weaknesses is a PR disaster in the making.

[Hawriel]

from what I read on this board Im thinking my wish for clear and concice writing has been dashed. Thats all I was really hoping for 4th ed, better writers and an editor to keep them in line.

[Kyle]

Blame the "Politically Correct" for that little tidbit. Human racial "subraces" with different strengths and weaknesses is a PR disaster in the making.

It would, just as rules requiring ability adjustments depending on a character's sex would.

That's not my point, though. I'm saying that elves and dwarves and whatnot should, as a species, have distinct traits that lable them. Humans make for an excellent baseline, and from there all elves should have the same ability adjustments, and all dwarves should have the same, so on and so forth, because that's what defines them as a race. I can only imagine that it was players whining about wanting to be an elf, but not wanting to take the hit to constitution that led to things like wood elves and wild elves.

However, if we accept that elves are, generally speaking, smaller, laithe, more agile when compared with humans, the Dex bonus and Con penalty make sense. Which isn't to say that there can't be clumsy or fairly robust elves, just that they're a rarity amoungst the species. Giving elves a bonus to Str and an Int penalty instead--as is the case with the MM 3.5 wood elves--makes no sense given the flavour of elves in general. Might make for a decent elf fighter, but you could make a decent elf combat monkey within the boundries of baseline elves as well.

Having the elves, eladrin, drow and whatever they call sea elves having the same roots but resulting in differant species makes much more sense, provided that's the way they're going. Making it somewhat akin to the differance between neanderthals and humans; same start, differant endings.

And yes, in the end it's all flavour and semantics, but in this case, it makes sense.

[Telonius]

For those who are still insisting that Eladrin are CG Outsiders, the chaotic equivalent of Archons, far too powerful to be a core race or a race without LA, and that 4E couldn't possibly change something so fundamental about the demographics of the planes, I recommend you check out the discussion (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=915263) on how much they're changing demons and devils. Get used to the idea, folks: they're redefining a lot about Outsiders to make them more setting-generic and less redundant.



Oh my. Did you catch this little tidbit?


- We've re-sorted demons and devils a bit, since we want these two categories of monsters to make a little more sense. Devils tend to be more humanoid in form, usually fight with weapons, and often wear armor. Most have horns, wings, and tails. One consequence of this: the erinyes and the succubus were holding down pretty similar territory, so we've decided that they're the same monster, called the succubus, and it's a devil.


Looks like there may be some clarification coming up for Sabine! :smallbiggrin:

[Rob Knotts]

Um, they ARE hobbits, only renamed.Correction: they WERE hobbits, then 3e came along and changed them into Wolfriders (http://www.elfquest.com/).

I preferred the (pre-Kender) Hobbits myself.

[Talya]

Oh my. Did you catch this little tidbit?



Looks like there may be some clarification coming up for Sabine! :smallbiggrin:

Take those with a grain of salt. They require brand new independant world-settings to make them work. Those changes simply do not fit into the Forgotten Realms (or even Greyhawk). In other words, "No, ain't happening." You cannot change the cosmology of an existing setting with the entire world history, events, and characters based off of that cosmology...especially in a setting where events and history are so strictly detailed already.

[horseboy]

Correction: they WERE hobbits, then 3e came along and changed them into Wolfriders (http://www.elfquest.com/).

I preferred the (pre-Kender) Hobbits myself.

You take that back! No halfling will ever be as cool as Cutter!

[Dervag]

Which? Halflings? Agreed. Gnomes? Drop the freakin'-tinker-thing. In my world, gnomes are actually very similar to Romer (or gypsies if you prefer).I thought that was what halflings were supposed to be.

[Leon]

Blame the "Politically Correct" for that little tidbit. Human racial "subraces" with different strengths and weaknesses is a PR disaster in the making.

No not really, IK has differing Humans depending on what region your are from (ok, they maybe set out as optinal choice but they exist and are heavliy used). makes a nice change from the plain jane cookie cutter +1 feat and a side order of skill human that exists everywhere else

Although DarkSun Humans are good too - two +2 Stat boosts anywhere you want and your choice of Psi power in addition to the Skills and Feat

[Jarlax]

Meh. I'm just thinking with all the increased focus on Faerun, they were using Faerun's core races...which include Tiefling, Aasimar, and all Genasi.

this doesnt mean Aasimar will be in. at this point there is no gaurentee the Tiefling will stay in, everything that has come out so far more or less hs the "this is all in development, it might not stay in" disclaimer.

i think what wizards have seen in 3.5 is a lot of races out of core that nobody played. half elves were voted the worst PC race in a wizards online poll, gnomes and halflings tread in each others territories a lot now that weapon damage is reduced for small creatures and both take a shot to their strength.

so wizards is brining in the more popular races from the MM. they have said there will be no "monster as characters" entry in the new MM so when the PHB and maybe the forgotten realms setting comes out thats our allotment of PC races untill 2009. in fact tiefling and asamar might be some of the FR races and not appear in the PHB as "core" races.

[Leon]

my reading of the article is that Eladrin are going to become the "evolved" elves of the upper planes - hopefuly they dont change the current ones to much and dont get carried away with new ones

[Leon]

monster as characters

What falls under the definition of a Monster PC

LA?, HD? Both?

[Merlin the Tuna]

You cannot change the cosmology of an existing setting with the entire world history, events, and characters based off of that cosmology...especially in a setting where events and history are so strictly detailed already.You can if you have the Soul Reaver. History abhors a paradox, after all. :smallwink:

[Renegade Paladin]

Thanks for pointing out the Eladrin are in the MM.

And yes, the Corellon and Obad-Hai reference threw me for a loop as well as they're not in the Faerun Pantheon ... or are they?

Dizlag
Corellon is. Obad-Hai is not.

[Devils_Advocate]

You cannot change the cosmology of an existing setting with the entire world history, events, and characters based off of that cosmology...especially in a setting where events and history are so strictly detailed already.
My understanding was that the Forgotten Realms setting has already been switched from using the Great Wheel cosmology in 2nd Edition to its own tree-like cosmology in 3rd Edition, without a lot of explanation being given for the switch.

Or have they since come up with a whole ton of stuff that's inextricably tied to the current FR cosmology?

[CasESenSITItiVE]

i think this is a good thing. the elves in 3.x never made any sense to me. how can they be both nature loving and civilized? it just gave them more of a "holier than thou" feel by giving them both the free spirited and civilized side of the coin.

[The Professor]

Meh. This is all just fluffy. Fluff is malleable and wonderful. I just worry about the mechanics, really. And a lack of races? I'm sure the stats won't be too different on monsters, so it shouldn't be too hard to make more playable if you want.

I gotta say, so far, I'm not a fan of the fluff. Granted, I started D&D in 3.5... I'm kinda set in my ways with the Devils and Demons. And my beloved Celestial Eladrins.

[MrNexx]

To me, it looks like they're trying to make elves into an actual Chaotic race, as opposed to the Chaotic-but-really-Lawful that they were in previous editions.

[Kurald Galain]

I think a "lack" of races is better than the overdose we have now. I can't think of a plausible reason for having a dozen or more "elf subraces" other than "OMG elves are t3h kewl!!!1!"

That said I wonder if a short paragraph on elves in the PHB4 can weigh up against decennia of fantasy novels that suggest archetypes for elves. Methinks players will keep thinking of those and draw their characters from there.

[Sebastian]

Take those with a grain of salt. They require brand new independant world-settings to make them work. Those changes simply do not fit into the Forgotten Realms (or even Greyhawk). In other words, "No, ain't happening." You cannot change the cosmology of an existing setting with the entire world history, events, and characters based off of that cosmology...especially in a setting where events and history are so strictly detailed already.

Don't understimate(?) WotC they could make a "ultimate" forgotten realms, like marvel did wih its classic comic, a total rewriting of the classical stuff. (I let you decide if it would be a good or bad idea).

All considered I'm getting tired of all these Fluff updates (and unoriginal fluff, to boot) It is useless to debate the value of 4D! on such a shaky ground (that any GM worth its salt can easily change, anyway), I'd like to see some crunchy stuff to chew on.

[AslanCross]

My reason for Eladrins not being a viable core race is not so much that they're "too powerful," but that there is not one single species of Eladrin that typifies them as a whole. They're basically like celestial fey--they're all chaotic good, but their forms vary wildly in size and ability, unlike elves, who have different ability adjustments because they have different cultures. Making them a core race is like saying "I think I'll play as a devil this game. What kind of devil? A devil devil. You know, they're all the same, they just have slightly different stats and varying cultures."

Of course, WOTC is redoing the devils and demons, but they're just reassigning them and clarifying roles, not fusing them all into a single archetype per race. If they're not doing that with devils and demons, I doubt they'd do that for races that aren't as well-known. Sure, they could redesign it any which way they want, but I think it would be a big waste of all their previous material if they turned it all on its head. Obsolescence aside, the older material is still a rich fertilizer for their more contemporary concepts.

[Jarlax]

What falls under the definition of a Monster PC

LA?, HD? Both?

None, there will be no monster PCs in 4E. wizards have clearly stated that if they want a race or creature as a PC race they will write up a PC race entry for it. so you will no longer find the rules for playing monsters as a PC race in the monster manuals and therefore no "Orcs as characters" or "mind flayers as characters" paragraphs at the end of a monster entry in the 4E MM.

wizards have basically said that when they write a monster its a monster entry to be used by the DM. when they want a PC race they will write a PC race entry to be used by players. and when they want a monster as a playable PC race they will write a new PC entry for it that might not even completely match its monster entry, if the new dragons are any indication monsters are getting a lot of abilities that should not be given to a PC.

when wizards said they were getting rid of complex rules its not surprising they targeted level adjustments, racial hit dice and the rules to create monster PCs that spawned savage species, which as a book i love to DM with but would never let my players near.

[Elderac]

In a different article, Tomb Under the Tor I believe, one of the characters is listed as being an Eldarin ranger.

It has also been suggested that some of the ECL races will have their abilities spread out so that they can be playable from level 1. (Other races will be getting abilities as the character levels as well.)

This suggests that they are looking at the Eldarin as a playable race that is related the the Elven race.

[Dausuul]

I think a "lack" of races is better than the overdose we have now. I can't think of a plausible reason for having a dozen or more "elf subraces" other than "OMG elves are t3h kewl!!!1!"

Elves: The Swiss Army race.

[GimliFett]

My reason for Eladrins not being a viable core race is not so much that they're "too powerful," but that there is not one single species of Eladrin that typifies them as a whole. They're basically like celestial fey--they're all chaotic good, but their forms vary wildly in size and ability, unlike elves, who have different ability adjustments because they have different cultures. Making them a core race is like saying "I think I'll play as a devil this game. What kind of devil? A devil devil. You know, they're all the same, they just have slightly different stats and varying cultures."

Maybe there'll be a "baseline" race that can evolve along different branches? Start as baseline eladrin, at certain level choose which branch you will follow, be it Bralani or Ghaele.

[Machete]

i think this is a good thing. the elves in 3.x never made any sense to me. how can they be both nature loving and civilized? it just gave them more of a "holier than thou" feel by giving them both the free spirited and civilized side of the coin.

Hurting my feelings.

I'm nature loving and civilized. I read the elf entry article and felt like Wizards had been spying on me. Except for the living shelter thing which wouldn't be quick enough to work, not even for elves. LOL. A regular noble savage I am I am. In fact I favor nature over civilization 9 times out of 10. Amazingly, I can read, write, play dnd, and even produce art.

Ok, so my poetry is sub-vogon, 3 out of 4 isn't bad.

[heroe_de_leyenda]

A new Design and Development Article: Elves (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070905a) is up on Wizard's site now. It's a nice write-up, but I've got a question. What are the Eladrin? Is it a sylvan race in Faerun? I know Forgotten Realms will be the new flag ship campaign setting for D&D 4th Edition, yet would the Eladrin be a core race as well because of the comparisons? Could there be sub-races listed in core rules for 4th Edition?

These were just a couple questions that popped up in my mind while reading the article.

Thanks!

Dizlag

FR is NOT the default setting in 4e, it's the first to be developed and/or converted. The dafault setting is not greyhawk, apparently they'll use some gods from greyhawk and that's it, it's a new setting "with points of light scattered in a dark world".
The Eladrin in 4e have little to do with Eladrin in 3e, they are introduced to be the arcane-inteligent-worldly, cousins of the more nature-intuitive-distant (better than ever!! more consistent!!!) elves.

I agree totally with this new (old) view, if the elves are supposed to ve slvan, nature-loving creatures, it would be somehow pointless to spend they're lives cloystered in libraries studying the arcane arts, when shey could be out in the woods in contact with nature.

[Starsinger]

I agree totally with this new (old) view, if the elves are supposed to ve slvan, nature-loving creatures, it would be somehow pointless to spend they're lives cloystered in libraries studying the arcane arts, when shey could be out in the woods in contact with nature.

And their favorite class (if they continue to use such a horrendous mechanic) should be Druid or Ranger instead of Wizard.

[OverdrivePrime]

I'm a huge fan of this. I've long taken my inspiration for most elves in my campaigns (I've got citified Grey Elves, and then the rest of elves who rock the fey angle) from the old myths and stories of elves. The Grey elves are more Tolkienesque, the rest of my elves are the wild, passionate fey. This "new" direction they're taking the elves in 4th edition gives me a lot of hope that WotC is keeping no sacred cows in their system rebuild. I'd applaud them, but I know they'd rather just get my money. :smallwink:


Additionally, it's entirely possible to be nature-loving and still living in cities. There are a lot of arguments that living in cities is actually better for the Earth... it's just that modern humans are doing it wrong. Too much concrete, too much runoff. I see elven cities as entirely integrated with nature so as not to bleed off resources or spew foul muck into the environment.

[Fhaolan]

None, there will be no monster PCs in 4E. wizards have clearly stated that if they want a race or creature as a PC race they will write up a PC race entry for it. so you will no longer find the rules for playing monsters as a PC race in the monster manuals and therefore no "Orcs as characters" or "mind flayers as characters" paragraphs at the end of a monster entry in the 4E MM.

Which I still find slightly irritating, because it means I'm going to need to do more work to get Centaurs converted into 4E PC races... again. Which will very likely be scrap when the Complete Centaur splatbook gets published. Ah well.

Just because it's a core race in this 'generic' campaign doesn't make it a core race in mine, and more importantly visa versa. By making it more difficult to have a different set of PC races based on different campaigns... I don't really see that as a good thing.

[Starsinger]

Which I still find slightly irritating, because it means I'm going to need to do more work to get Centaurs converted into 4E PC races... again. Which will very likely be scrap when the Complete Centaur splatbook gets published. Ah well.

Just because it's a core race in this 'generic' campaign doesn't make it a core race in mine, and more importantly visa versa. By making it more difficult to have a different set of PC races based on different campaigns... I don't really see that as a good thing.

Ah but see, this might translate to a good deal of the MM races that say "X as Player Characters" having their own PC race section in the 4e MM. Instead of just slapping on an absurd LA and some racial HD and saying "knock yourself out."

[Morty]

None, there will be no monster PCs in 4E. wizards have clearly stated that if they want a race or creature as a PC race they will write up a PC race entry for it. so you will no longer find the rules for playing monsters as a PC race in the monster manuals and therefore no "Orcs as characters" or "mind flayers as characters" paragraphs at the end of a monster entry in the 4E MM.

wizards have basically said that when they write a monster its a monster entry to be used by the DM. when they want a PC race they will write a PC race entry to be used by players. and when they want a monster as a playable PC race they will write a new PC entry for it that might not even completely match its monster entry, if the new dragons are any indication monsters are getting a lot of abilities that should not be given to a PC.

when wizards said they were getting rid of complex rules its not surprising they targeted level adjustments, racial hit dice and the rules to create monster PCs that spawned savage species, which as a book i love to DM with but would never let my players near.

On the other hand, I belive I've seen somewhere Wizards saying that there will be goblin PCs possible, so I guess that some of the "monster" races will have stats to be used by players.
Otherwise, I'd be mildly annoyed.

[Larrin]

On the other hand, I belive I've seen somewhere Wizards saying that there will be goblin PCs possible, so I guess that some of the "monster" races will have stats to be used by players.
Otherwise, I'd be mildly annoyed.


I've also gotten this impression from what i've read. What i've heard said is NOT that there won't be 'monster' PC, but rather a 'monster' PC will not be identicle to the normal monster. So if a troll monster has +6 natural armour, regeneration 20, and 6 levels of monsterous humanoid (numbers pull from the air) and +16 to str, a troll PC will not nesecarily have any of these, he might just get fast heal 1, +2 to str, and no annoying racial hit dice. (just an example) the Playable write ups of 'monsters' will not be mirrors of the monster entry, because that leads to LA and ECL and the like. Thus you will have a limited number of 'monster' races you can build into characters, but there will be more then just the PHB gives you.

to quote a posting a found:

Monstrous races? Can you still make kobold barbarians? We’re not going to put limitations on the way we build monsters to make them work right. We know there are monsters that will become player character races. For example, it will be obvious how to play a goblin PC right out of the monster manual and PH.

AND

Will we be doing ECL? That’s a good example of something applied to the game to help make somethings work easier. We don’t want to recreate this. We’re not going to give you rules to play a blink dog fighter… There will be many more choices, however, and we want to make sure they are all playable right out of the gate. If say, for instance, we put a tiefling in the PH, we would certainly want to make it playable right out of the gate. So, for example, we might have had to make a lot of the other races a little bit cooler to keep the balance straight between the races.
(http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=204434)

hopefully the link works

[Person_Man]

I'm not really concerned with how they tweak the fluff of the races. Elves will always have pointy ears and live in the woods. Dwarves will be short and have beards. Etc, ad nauseum. I almost always end up playing in Greyhawk or a home brew game world anyway - so while I appreciate fluffy new ideas - the specific details rarely concern me.

What does concern me is that classes in 4.0 will have specific racial extensions. I'm guessing that it will work like Star Wars Saga class trees. And this may cause some problems. If I want my elves to be snooty magic user Upper East Side high elves, but all of the crunch is written for fey coo coo for cocoa puffs chaotic bow wielding wood elves, then I might be SOL.

Presumably it won't be that big of a deal - since there will be multiple branches on the class tree - allowing me to just avoid the elf class tree in favor of a more generic class branch. But I find it odd that WotC is de-coupling alignment from crunch on one hand, while creating a whole set of new connections between racial fluff and crunch on the other. It doesn't seem to make sense.

[AslanCross]

Maybe there'll be a "baseline" race that can evolve along different branches? Start as baseline eladrin, at certain level choose which branch you will follow, be it Bralani or Ghaele.

Ah, I guess that makes sense.

[Rob Knotts]

the elves in 3.x never made any sense to me. how can they be both nature loving and civilized?:smallconfused:

Try asking someone in China or Japan, maybe they can explain it to you:smallwink:

[Da Beast]

Did any one else think of Warcraft's moon elves (elves) and high elves (eladrins) when they read this?

[GimliFett]

Uh-oh! Methinks ye've hit on somethin'! :smallbiggrin:

[Green Bean]

Did any one else think of Warcraft's moon elves (elves) and high elves (eladrins) when they read this?

A little. It's almost as if both versions are based on ancient preexisting legends about them. :smallbiggrin:

[Dausuul]

What does concern me is that classes in 4.0 will have specific racial extensions. I'm guessing that it will work like Star Wars Saga class trees. And this may cause some problems. If I want my elves to be snooty magic user Upper East Side high elves, but all of the crunch is written for fey coo coo for cocoa puffs chaotic bow wielding wood elves, then I might be SOL.

Yeah, that does concern me a bit. I'm currently planning out a new game world in which elves are corrupt, decadent, immortal bastards with way too much magic for their own (or anyone else's) good. I hope the New Elves aren't too tied into the nature-loving fluff.


Presumably it won't be that big of a deal - since there will be multiple branches on the class tree - allowing me to just avoid the elf class tree in favor of a more generic class branch. But I find it odd that WotC is de-coupling alignment from crunch on one hand, while creating a whole set of new connections between racial fluff and crunch on the other. It doesn't seem to make sense.

I can see it, actually. Alignment has always worked poorly with D&D crunch; it's a vague, ill-defined concept*, yet it's used in the mechanics as if the definition were crystal clear, even going so far as to strip a certain class of its abilities entirely if it strays from its alignment boundaries. (And while I'm sure lots of people will read this and think, "What? The definitions are perfectly clear," the fact that every single one of those people has a different definition is proof enough of my point.)

On the other hand, it's always struck me as odd that your choice of race doesn't have more of an effect on the game. If you're playing an elf, you are Not Human. You have a different physiology, a different culture, different everything. Surely that should have more impact on your game mechanics than just a couple of stat modifiers and the totally random ability to detect secret doors?

[hamlet]

The problem isn't so much, as I see it, that they're redefining elves in the fluff text. That's easy and fine. As a DM I can cross that off and replace it with absolutely no impact to the rules whatsoever. For a long time, wood elves, high elves, grey elves, whatever elves, were nothing more than elves with different flavor text hung on them. That's the way it should be.

As I see it now, WOTC is tying their vision of elves right into the rules so that if you wanted a game where, instead of nature loving hippies, elves are city dwelling and haughty arcanists, you're SOL without redefining a whole set of rules.

That's just flat out bad game design.

[Golthur]

Yeah, that does concern me a bit. I'm currently planning out a new game world in which elves are corrupt, decadent, immortal bastards with way too much magic for their own (or anyone else's) good. I hope the New Elves aren't too tied into the nature-loving fluff.
I agree wholeheartedly. Nearly every world I make, if I use a standard race, it usually isn't fulfilling it's "official" role.

I've even got a world brewing in my melon where halflings are the evil slave overlords of the world. :amused:

This will make substantially more work for me when making a new world if an entire race's abilities is tied into the fluff so tightly.


On the other hand, it's always struck me as odd that your choice of race doesn't have more of an effect on the game. If you're playing an elf, you are Not Human. You have a different physiology, a different culture, different everything. Surely that should have more impact on your game mechanics than just a couple of stat modifiers and the totally random ability to detect secret doors?

Yes, I agree - but they should clearly separate physiological traits from cultural ones. This will work "better" (for my subjective definition of "better") for world homebrewers like me, as well as for more "odd" character concepts - e.g. an elf raised by halflings, for example?

[GimliFett]

Yes, I agree - but they should clearly separate physiological traits from cultural ones. This will work "better" (for my subjective definition of "better") for world homebrewers like me, as well as for more "odd" character concepts - e.g. an elf raised by halflings, for example?

I'd like this myself. I had to wing things when the player of a halfling dungeon delver was killed and then reincarnated as a brown bear (we liked the old chart better!), some things seem more learned than physical...

[Rex Blunder]

A little more evidence for eladrin as a base class:


The files inside it have the new D&D logo, a sketch of an eladrin wizard, and another sketch I can't remember. (source) (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=918604)

It's not proof per se, but if eladrin is a family of races, it's amusingly vague (like saying, "That's a really nice picture of a mammal wearing a hat.")